High XP characters

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Do you mean p. 63 of the companion, or something else?

A Modest Proposal for The Fantasy Trip, David R Dunham (from Different Worlds 15, 1981) TFT Companion P42.

[Steve Plambeck]

I envisioned a system using FOUR attributes when I was trying to write my own game. All four could be increased at the same price in XP.

DX, ST, VG (Vigor), and IQ

DX was subdivided into two stats: Dressed Dexterity (DDX) and Effective Dexterity (EDX). DDX, representing quickness, was equal to the base DX minus encumbrance for gear and armor. In a departure from TFT, figures in combat turns would act in order of DDX. EDX was equal to DDX +/- all applicable adjustments, and determined accuracy to hit or parry, make saving rolls, etc.

ST was still coupled to weapons available and capacity to take hit points, but uncoupled from spell costs.

VG (Vigor) was the stat against which fatigue and exhaustion would be tallied, with spell costs counting as fatigue. An "energetic" wizard could cast more spells, but not lift more weight or take more wounds.

IQ worked more as it does in Legacy TFT than the original. It summed with a separately tracked balance of earned Skill Points to set the Skill Limit, the number of skills that could be learned. IQ still determined the complexity of skills and spells one could learn. Unlike Legacy TFT, the Skill Limit would go up with an increase in IQ, but apparently I'd intended to allow Skill Points to be increased separately from IQ. (I didn't remember writing any of that and was surprised to see it in my crumbling manuscript!)

Starting humans were to be DX 10, ST 8, VG 9, IQ 8, with 7 free points to assign for a total of 42.

My XP costs for new Attribute points were going to be less than in original ITL. My group never had an attribute bloat problem with any of our PCs, and we played nearly 20 straight years.

[larsdangly]

When I've done this sort of thing I haven't expanded or split the physical stats or IQ; rather, I introduce stats to facilitate new things, like Status for social interactions and jobs. I'm not convinced the basic combat and tactical magic functions of TFT are improved by adding or splitting stats specifically for that part of the game. It is already a pretty finely detailed tactical combat game, so I feel like the new things that 'open it up' have to do with out-of-combat activities. One exception might be my house rules for a Bravery stat and associated Morale rules, which I feel add something new to combat.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

When I've done this sort of thing I haven't expanded or split the physical stats or IQ; rather, I introduce stats to facilitate new things, like Status for social interactions and jobs. I'm not convinced the basic combat and tactical magic functions of TFT are improved by adding or splitting stats specifically for that part of the game. It is already a pretty finely detailed tactical combat game, so I feel like the new things that 'open it up' have to do with out-of-combat activities. One exception might be my house rules for a Bravery stat and associated Morale rules, which I feel add something new to combat.

I love that distinction between an "Attribute" and a "stat" -- I think that kind of language helps keep what we're all talking about clear. Yes, every Attribute can be called a "stat", but not every "stat" is an Attribute.

Limitless stats can be added without changing the game -- they are more tools for bookkeeping and regulating play outside of combat than anything else. If it helps some group think of wounds as the "Injury Score", and you put a box on your character record sheets labeled "Injury Score" because it's easier for some players, you ain't changed the game.

I used to use a stat called Karma (KA) to keep track of a character's standing with their god or gods. Everyone was at KA 10 to start, and each player could get an adjustment to that depending on how happy, or unhappy, their god would feel about something they did. And sometimes when appropriate, there was a saving roll against KA. That was just a tool to manage a part of role playing -- it may have looked like an Attribute but it wasn't, just like the Bravery score you mentioned. Stuff like this is great.

The danger comes in elevating a "stat" to Attribute status. If XP can be turned in to increase one of these stats, that's what you're doing, and that's a flirtation with unbalancing the game. The new method for learning Talents in the Legacy edition is such a flirtation itself, and only time will tell if this experiment works out.

[larsdangly]

This points to something that I think is a deep structural flaw of GURPS (much as I love many of its elements): If you connect the 'point economies' of all character properties (attributes, skills, etc.) into a single, global metric, then it is inevitable that the system will be radically manipulated to create characters who are extraordinary at the parts of the game that your group treats as competitions you really can win or lose (almost universally in fantasy roleplaying games, this means skirmish-scale combat). If you keep these economies separated, it is much easier to maintain balance and control. TFT is almost eerily well balanced - I defy you to think of a ST-DX-IQ combination totaling 40 or less that is obviously better than all other combinations of the same total. But if you add several stats and have them all share the same 'economics', this is no longer the case.

You could potentially argue that the XP economy of LE effectively links stats, talents, spells, etc. But in practice this isn't true: it is very obvious that, whatever your ultimate character goals, you will raise stats for a while until they get into the range 37-40, then switch to gaining spells, mana, talents, etc., and basically never look back. So, the economics of those two different 'magisteria' (attributes vs. spells/talents) are functionally separated.

[hcobb]

The best allocation of 40 attributes is of course 6+12+20+30 = 8300 XP

Or you can splurge for two excess points of ST for the same cost as 30 Mana.

[Skarg]

Lars, you make a good point about the balance in original TFT.

However, I think the balance in Legacy TFT is undermined by the idea every PC needs 500 XP to learn a talent point even if they raise IQ. That looks to me like ending up a 500 XP "savings" for any long-term surviving character per IQ point they start with.

Combined with the new Legacy XP award suggestions and seeming more lenient notions of PC survival, I'd tend to say ST 8 DX 8 IQ 16 is from a certain view the "best" starting character (because of the 8000 XP savings on later spell/talent learning XP), as long as the GM lets the character survive and gain XP like other characters. If they can make friends with someone who knows Aid (who in Legacy wouldn't even need to be a wizard due to losing the -4 casting penalty for non-wizards), that starting PC could also be pretty effective (since they give the party access to IQ 16 spells, possibly even effectively if Aid is used).

[larsdangly]

These extreme sorts of starting PC's sound good as 'white room' exercises in XP economics, but I have never seen one in play and don't believe they would survive the Darwinian world of TFT adventures. A ST 8, DX 8, IQ 16 character sounds like a very interesting book worm or enchanter, but such a character would almost certainly be murdered long before they could evolve into someone who would be competitive on the battle mat.

[hcobb]

If you click on the link in my sig you get to my homepage which includes an online adventure where the IQ 17 starting character is the party's best frontline fighter.

Go ahead and take the hard path without ring or apprentice.

[larsdangly]

Originally Posted by hcobb

If you click on the link in my sig you get to my homepage which includes an online adventure where the IQ 17 starting character is the party's best frontline fighter.

Go ahead and take the hard path without ring or apprentice.

How does that character avoid getting taken out with an arrow? He or she has a low DX and so acts relatively late in the turn; I would have thought many encounters would begin with him or her in the line of fire of a higher DX foe who could deliver a fatal shot with almost any missile weapon.